On May 30, 2011, at 8:46 AM, X Acto wrote: > > > Ron, > > Why don't you explain how you understand the contradiction. > > > Marsha > > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > Well, for starters, this quote tends to say it all... > > "From a centrists perspective, ontological absolutism is based on the > mental distortion known as reification." > > Meaning, that from a pragmatic point of view > > >> " As theory is not purely determined by some intrinsic nature of reality, >> there is no one conceptual system that uniquely accounts for the >> myriad of natural phenomena"
And please note that Wallace's next statement in the paragraph mentions not a pragmatic point-of-view, but being relative: "Objects exist relative to the theory-laden consciousness that experiences them." The conclusions you reach are a leap beyond my understanding of Wallace's statements. > you are taking a position of an ontological absolutism when you assert > that the mental distortion known as reification IS the basis of all > conception. > This assertion demands that there is only one conceptual system that > uniquely accounts for the myriad of natural phenomena contending that > salvation from it is the subdueing or "killing" of it. Wallace talks about > reification as a "tendancy". Marsha: And though Wallace does use the word 'tendency,' his statement is a little more strongly worded: "The natural tendency of reification, which we have had since childhood, is extremely difficult to eradicate from our habits of thinking and perceiving." > This is the difference I see between yours and Wallaces point of view > regarding reification. Marsha: This speculated difference between Wallace and myself does not exist. Marsha ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
